Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Canal bank conversations are normally left on the bank but this one was slightly worrying.

A person who claimed to have sat as a commissioner at a regional government hearing on a notified plan to develop infrastructure referred to one of the parties of the hearing as applicant, as a greedy commercial participant with only one concern, to get a ruling that would enhance the commercial viability of the works for financial advantage.

So what you might say, isn't that the whole idea, well yes but the pre judging attitude of the "commissioner" seemed to preclude any unbiased outcome as far as the applicant's chances, was the worry.

I have sat as a commissioner in a hearing and my prejudices and belief system will colour my thinking, but the language used in this case was way beyond what I have just conceded as a natural response in making it as fair as possible.
The hearing was doomed before it started and with the massive costs involved it could have saved a heap of coin for the applicants had the person had the integrity to recuse themselves. Who knows it may have ended with a consent approved?